Background

Some time ago I commented that the xApp program, which was where SAP “partnered” with a number of best of breed vendors should be terminated.

http://www.scmfocus.com/inventoryoptimizationmultiechelon/2010/01/its-time-for-the-sap-xapps-program-to-die/

The program did finally become mostly irrelevant (a few partnerships persist), with partners who were ill served by the program refusing to continue their relationship with SAP. However, what is not frequently discussed is that SAP garnered a great deal of information about best of breed vendors from this program. Many best of breed vendors entered into the partnership with great expectations, but SAP never seriously meant to help them much in the way of sales.

Historical View

However, SAP starting partnerships and then ending them, often with IP that later leads to a lawsuit is quite common. It happened with i2 Technologies and with Commerce One.

History Repeats Itself

This article describes how they essentially did the same thing to another vendor, called Wellogix. The entire article is listed below:

http://www.cio.com/article/694830/Software_Vendor_Says_Partnership_with_SAP_Led_to_Stolen_Trade_Secrets

The quotations from this article are eerily similar what has come to be an obvious pattern with SAP. Some quotes include the following:

While SAP already had an SRM (supplier relationship management module) that could handle some procurement tasks, it was inadequate for “complex services,” according to the complaint. “Wellogix had a working version of this software, and SAP was aware that it worked in a large client environment such as BP.”

After the deal was signed, a number of SAP employees visited Wellogix’s offices for a few days in order to “kick-off the NetWeaver Partner Agreement and perform [SAP's] due diligence on Wellogix for the purpose of either investment in or the acquisition of Wellogix,” it adds. “During the workshop, employees of SAP went through Wellogix’s P2P software code in person with Wellogix personnel disclosing parts of the code structure.”

But instead of following through with the partnership, SAP used Wellogix’s trade secrets to “replicate the capabilities” of its software and incorporated them into its own SRM products, according to the lawsuit.

This is all very standard. In fact, after seeing SAP work this way for years, I feel I could have written this script without having to actually read the article. However, the next part of the allegation becomes even more interesting. This is because SAP did not act alone to steal Wellogix’s IP:

In 1999, BP America hired Accenture to help it “create a paperless (i.e. electronic) process in oil field services,” it adds. “After a thorough review of over twenty vendors, including SAP, Accenture recommended Wellogix.”

In January 2002, Wellogix and BP signed a software and services agreement, it adds. But Accenture then obtained confidential trade secrets from Wellogix and passed them along to SAP, according to the complaint.

Wellogix also sued Accenture in 2008, and won a $94 million jury award against the company earlier this year. Last month, a judge lowered the award $50 million and told Wellogix it could either accept the new amount or hold a new trial.

And this is also not surprising. I have been writing for some time that SAP is far to powerful with the major consulting firms. In most cases the major firms simply recommend SAP no matter how poor the fit. In fact, in most clients I work with, the most appropriate software from a requirements and functionality perspective is not selected. There are several reasons for this, but one major reason is that major firms like Oracle and SAP distort the market, making is far less efficient — as an economist would consider it, than the consumer software market. There is a great misunderstanding regarding the nature of market efficiency. Markets do not automatically become efficient through competition. Markets must be kept fair in order for an efficient market to exist as companies desire to build monopolies. This is the same function performed by referees at any game. A fair game, can only be ensured by an impartial intermediary which enforces the civil rules of the game. Those who use the term “free markets” or competition without understanding this feature of markets essentially do not understand the entirety of history of economics.

Efficiency of the enterprise software market is extremely important for the efficiency of the overall economy as is disucssed in this post.

http://www.scmfocus.com/enterprisesoftwarepolicy/2011/11/29/how-efficient-is-the-market-for-enterprise-software/

Major consulting companies maximize their revenues by recommending SAP, and this is why software selections performed by the major consulting companies are essentially rigged as I described in this article.

http://www.scmfocus.com/consulting/consulting-facts/why-big-consulting-firms-cannot-do-software-selection/

There is a concept that a consulting company provides an “advisement” function to their clients. However, with the money that drives the compensation schemes in the major consulting companies, the concept of putting the client ahead of the consulting firm’s revenues has essentially completely disappeared.

However, in this case, Accenture (which is not only accused but has been found guilty) conspired with SAP to help SAP steal intellectual property from a smaller vendor. This must have caught Wellogix completely by surprise, however, it shouldn’t have because first of all, Accenture has a terrible reputation for unethical behavior, but also because the major consulting firms like Accenture receive so much of their consulting revenue from SAP that they are almost an arm of SAP. The best terminology I can use to describe the relationship is that they are remotely controlled.

http://www.scmfocus.com/sapprojectmanagement/2011/09/how-sap-remotely-controls-implementation-partners/

Conclusion

This is a perfect example of how SAP has simply accumulated far too cozy a relationship and far too much influence over other actors in the enterprise market. I am not sure what more evidence the Federal Trade Commission (the body that polices anti-competitive behavior) has to see before they step in to limit SAP’s clear and obvious monopoly power in enterprise software. It has gone from major consulting firms overwhelmingly recommending SAP, even when the solution barely exists, to now a consulting company, and I would tend to doubt Accenture is the only one, assisting SAP in stealing IP from a vendor which the the vendor freely shared with Accenture. If the FTC or other body does not eventually stop the behavior, it will actually get worse because SAP grows bigger every year, and very simply, power corrupts.

Continuing to try to address SAP’s abuses of power with smaller parties litigating against it is insufficient for the task. The litigation undertaken by Wellogix must have been extremely expensive and a distraction for them, and is not something they should have had to bear. I wish I could have spoken with them before they partnered with SAP to explain how SAP operates. I have been fortunate enough to warn several vendors and I think keep them out of SAP’s lair.

All vendors, regardless of their size, deserve protections from companies like SAP. Theoretically, companies are supposed to have similar intellectual property rights. However, that is now how it is in practice. SAP has superior intellectual property rights over other vendors, and routinely violates the intellectual properly rights of other vendors. This has been demonstrated in multiple lawsuits, as well as my own observation of new SAP modules that have copied much of the functionality of best of breed vendors that they were once “partners” with. This is why it is time to regulate SAP, and not simply leave individual lawsuits as the only defense that best of breed vendors have against a company with $12.5 billion in annual revenues, and that don’t seem to think that rules of fair play apply to them.

 

 

 

{ 1 comment }

Background

IBM is an enormous company that does a variety of things, however the majority of their revenue comes from enterprise consulting. This does not seem to be known by people outside of consulting how still associate IBM with mainframes or hardware services. They also own a large software suite. However, the way they use their software is not like ordinary vendors benefit from their software. IBM no doubt makes a good return from their software, but the main point of the many IBM acquisitions is to sell in IBM consulting services, which are their bread and butter. Their approach is documented in this very good article

http://www.sand.com/ibm-microsoft-oracle-sap-customers/

…which has some of the following quote:

IBM bills itself as a thought leader, but its real business is selling consulting services. To thrive, IBM account managers try to take control of a company’s IT strategy so they can keep pushing new products. Gaughan recommends taking a collaborative or partner approach.

I have witnessed this behavior first hand as an independent consultant on projects and can say the author knows exactly what they are talking about.

What Happens to Acquired Vendors?

IBM acquires many software vendors, but the evidence is that these vendors gradually lose their relevance over time and that they move from being innovators to laggards in the marketplace. This is not actually that damaging to IBM because they only need their acquisition to be viable for a few years before they are able to make their money back with their lucrative consulting work, which is partially at least, based on their ability to acquire firms.

What Occurs

  1. For current customers of an application, they now are hit up by IBM salespeople, and their application costs increase.
  2. The investment in the software is diminished because IBM is not able to further develop the product very much, and in fact, that is not even IBM’s focus.
  3. IBM begins recommending whatever software they purchases through their consulting business. (how a major consulting firm can objectively recommend products which it sells and maintain its objectivity is difficult to understand)

The Public Interest

The problem with all of this is that its very difficult to see how this benefits anyone but IBM. The determination of what companies can merge is a question for the government and must pass a standard of public interest benefit, or at least that is the official story. For instance the recent attempt by ATT to acquire T-Mobile was not allowed because it could pass a public interest test. ATT wanted the enhanced market power of T-Mobile, but is not interested in submitting to the type of regulation which prevent ATT from gouging customers that would have fewer placed to turn. In fact, generally the government is, in my view, far to lenient on allowing mergers as few mergers actually benefit the consumers or buyers of a product or service. However, these companies are major financial contributors. Interestingly with all the rhetoric about competition, few companies seem willing to compete, and want to grow through agglomerating and concentrating their market power with other companies.

Policy Perspective

Form an enterprise policy perspective, there is an obvious problem with allowing a company to acquire software vendors that it uses to enhanced its monopoly position particularly when there is a tie between a business that partially performs advisement (IBM Global Services) and selling software. It also has a negative effect on innovation in the software marketplace. The product CPLEX is a good example of this problem. CPLEX is a general optimizer that is used as a stand alone product, but is also incorporated into many enterprise software applications. For instance SAP’s supply network and production planning modules are powered by CPLEX. However, now that it is owned by IBM, CPLEX has been captured, and I am reticent to recommend CPLEX to a client because it comes with all the IBM overhead and manipulation of and IBM account manager that is trained to “penetrate and radiate the client.” This is bad for clients and a waste because it means that my investment into CPLEX is diminished because it is no longer an independent company, and furthermore little future development can be expected from CPLEX. This problem is repeated with any software which IBM acquires, and they have a very large number of acquisitions in their stable. I have a number of good relationships with best of breed supply chain vendors, and if any of them were to be purchased, my relationship with them would probably end as they would then be mired in the bureaucracy of IBM. I cannot in good conscious recommend a product owned by IBM because this allows the “camel’s head into the tent.”

Conclusions

Mergers should be allowed where there is more than simply the improvement to the condition of the acquirer. IBM thinks very highly of itself and continually touts its research capabilities, however, if they are thought leaders why is it that they cannot develop software internally and must continually buy best of breed vendors? Buying companies based upon proceeds from another business, simply to benefit the consulting business is bad from an enterprise policy perspective. For this reason, it makes zero sense to allow IBM to acquire companies. If IBM is good, they would be able to compete in the software business without these acquisitions.

References

http://www.sand.com/ibm-microsoft-oracle-sap-customers/

http://news.consumerreports.org/electronics/2011/12/more-signs-that-att-is-backing-out-of-t-mobile-acquisition-attempt.html

{ 0 comments }

Could DP or BW Survive as Independent Products from SAP?

December 11, 2011

Background From a fair competition perspective the basic concept of an efficient software market is that a company makes a product which it then sells to other companies that find the product of value. The enterprise software market is different from most other markets, including the consumer software market in that the capabilities and performance [...]

Read the full article →

How Efficient is the Market for Enterprise Software?

November 29, 2011

Background It is quite uncommon for the fairness or efficiency of industries and markets to be questions in the US. Generally, people tend to enjoy simple answers that do not hold companies accountable for whether they produce positive outcomes, or even negative externalities. Americans generally consider their various industries, and labor under the illusion that [...]

Read the full article →

The Case Against SAP for Anti Trust Violations

November 19, 2011

Background It has been apparent to me for some time that SAP is acting in a way contrary to US Anti Trust Law. Therefore, I decided to perform more research on anti trust law and develop this article. The following quotation from the DOJ website I found of interest. …certain acts are considered so harmful [...]

Read the full article →

Everyone In Enterprise Software is Afraid of the Big SAP Bully

November 16, 2011

Background It is well known that SAP is a very successful software company. However, what is not well known about SAP is that they control the language that other vendors use when describing their products in relation to SAP, and that vendors that want to sell into SAP accounts have censored their language on their [...]

Read the full article →

How SAP Corrupted the Advisory Function of the Major Consulting Companies

November 13, 2011

Background Most software companies perform a lot of the implementation work with their own consulting organizations. This has been true since the beginnings of the enterprise software market. However, several decades ago, SAP made a very important decision. They decided to let the large oligopolistic consulting firms take most of the consulting work. This resulted [...]

Read the full article →

Why Is There So Little Interest in Enterprise Software Policy?

November 11, 2011

Background It is always interesting to research the amount of coverage a topic gets. When I decided to begin a sub-blog on the SCM Focus site, the first thing I did was check for material on enterprise software policy. Software generally is very important to the economy. Less well understood, the health of the enterprise [...]

Read the full article →